Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185845
tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo? |
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: nss-mdns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172869
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-10-06 18:00 EST -------
I would be happy to review this, with the understanding that I have no hope in
hell of actually testing it properly.
However, it would be nice to see some response to the issues in comment #13.
Also the URLs to the spec and src.rpm don't seem to be working.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185845
tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tibbs(a)math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis| |
Flag| |needinfo?
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-10-06 17:48 EST -------
Thanks. Builds in mock; rpmlint has this to say:
W: rpld mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 10)
Fix if you like.
W: rpld incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8-1 1.8-3.fc6
You should make a changelog entry at minimum for each release. The current
release is 1.8-3 but the last changelog entry is from 1.8-1.
Hmm, not that I look at things, this is a beta release, isn't it? In that case
you should follow the naming guidelines for prereleases:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
So this should be named something like rpmd-1.8-0.1.beta1. If you revise it, go
to 1.8-0.2.beta1. When beta2 comes out, then go to 1.8-0.3.beta2. And when
it's finally released (if it ever is), you can go to 1.8-1. Basically you can
put anything you want after the second number in the release, even if things
don't sort alphabetically, as long as you keep incrementing the second number.
I'm still not seeing the proper flags being passed to the compiler:
gcc -c -o protocol.o protocol.c
gcc -c -o rpld.o rpld.c
You're using the patch, but for some reason you need a second make call in the
%build section as the first one doesn't actually build the software. I just
duplicated the "make" line verbatim.
* source files match upstream:
08a020c08a466378a99edb88ea98ba35 rpld-1.8-beta-1.tar.gz
X package meets naming guidelines (needs to use prerelease naming conventions).
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
X compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X debuginfo package is busted.
X rpmlint has valid complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane (no non-glibc requirements).
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream. It is not possible for me to
test this package.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208584
Summary: Review Request: mirrormagic - Puzzle game where you
steer a beam of light using mirrors
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl
QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/mirrormagic.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/mirrormagic-2.0.2-1.fc6.src.rpm
Description:
MirrorMagic is a game where you shoot around obstacles to collect energy using
your beam. It is similar to "Mindbender" (Amiga) from the same author. The goal
is to work out how to get around obstacles to shoot energy containers with your
beam, thereby opening the path to the next level. Included are many levels
familiar from the games "Deflektor" and "Mindbender".
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185845
i(a)stingr.net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?(i(a)stingr.net) |
------- Additional Comments From i(a)stingr.net 2006-10-06 15:15 EST -------
Sorry for the delays.
http://stingr.net/l/fe/rpld-1.8-3.src.rpm
and http://stingr.net/l/fe/rpld.spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209144
Summary: Review Request: alsa-oss - Userspace OSS emulation
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: jima(a)beer.tclug.org
QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Spec URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/alsa-oss/alsa-oss.spec
SRPM URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/alsa-oss/alsa-oss-1.0.12-1.fc6.src.rpm
Description:
This package contains the compatibility library and wrapper script for
running legacy OSS applications through ALSA. Unlike the kernel
driver, this has the advantage of supporting DMIX software mixing.
This package is technically a duplicate of Bug 187706, a stalled review. Please do not mark it as such; the current reviewer has signed off on filing this review bug. Thanks!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207927
Summary: Review Request: supertuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing
game featuring Tux
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl
QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/supertuxkart.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/supertuxkart-0.2-1.src.rpm
Description:
3D go-kart racing game for kids with several famous OpenSource mascots
participating. Race as Tux against 3 computer players in many different fun
race courses (Standard race track, Dessert, Mathclass, etc). Full information
on how to add your own race courses is included. During the race you can pick
up powerups such as: (homing) missiles, magnets and portable zippers.
---
Notice that this really is nothing more then a new version of tuxkart, but since tuxkart upstream is sorta dead, a group of developers has brought out their new version under a new name called supertuxkart. After some discussion on f-e-l it was decided that it was best to create a new CVS branch for this new named version and thus a (Re-)Review
Since this thus essentially is not a new package (mearly a rename) I would like to request a "quick" review whatever that may mean :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gideon - GUI designer for GTK/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175168
Bug 175168 depends on bug 206134, which changed state.
Bug 206134 Summary: Review Request: guiloader-c++ - C++ Binding to GuiLoader Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206134
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185845
tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO
AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink(a)leemhuis.info |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Flag| |needinfo?(i(a)stingr.net)
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-10-05 21:09 EST -------
Ping?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583
------- Additional Comments From dwmw2(a)redhat.com 2006-10-05 13:57 EST -------
There's more work to be done after the agreement from Digium to merge it
upstream -- we have to actually make the code _acceptable_ upstream. So next
week would be massively inappropriate anyway. It's quite concerning to hear such
a thing being said.
When it's ready upstream, we can put it into the rawhide kernel. Only when
that's done would it be sensible to even _consider_ doing a kmod package for it
-- and even then we might as well just put it into a released erratum of the
kernel package proper, if we really want to ship it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.